27 thoughts on “Hitchens And Hell”

  1. Which is supported by the fact that most ‘Christian’ theology is at odds with what scripture actually says.

    Trinity: predates Christianity with many three faced archeological relics.
    Hades and Sheol: not a burning hell, but the common grave where the dust goes and your thoughts perish.

    Much of the ‘theology’ comes from political rulers and has much in common with Santa and the Easter bunny.

    The radical claim the bible makes is that it is inspired by god; for that it provides abundant evidence.

    1. Which is supported by the fact that most ‘Christian’ theology is at odds with what scripture actually says.

      The fact that scripture is at odds with itself (not to mention reality) doesn’t help.

    2. Hades and Sheol: not a burning hell, but the common grave where the dust goes and your thoughts perish.

      I’ve heard that the concepts of Sheol and of Satan as the adversary of God in Judaism were syncretistic developments during the Exile, under Persian influence.

        1. Not by that name I think, but more to the point, in the older materials he is a sort of ally / servant of God, not the spirit of evil and rebellion. That apparently comes from the Persian Ahriman.

          1. in the older materials he is a sort of ally / servant of God

            In all 1600 years scripture Satan is consistently described as one of god’s angels that was given the assignment of rulership over the earth (god is a god of order and his angels exist in a hierarchy.) Satan chose to rebel making himself ruler over other angels that rebelled.

            He created a conflict that has yet to be resolved.

            He had access and came before god in the assembly of other angels (book of Job) until the end of the gentile time in which he was restricted to the vicinity of earth (having great anger which we can perceive today)

            All consistent with the passage of time.

    1. You are a hoot Trent. I still think you believe in SpaceX no matter what you say on your blog (forgive me Rand, can’t reply on his from a library computer.)

      On point, why would you use a cross to identify as Christian? Now if he’d been torn apart by lions as later Christians were, that would be a symbol. Would you use a gun to symbolize your religion if that were what was used?

      Then again, scripture uses animal imagery to invoke the animal behavior of people. So maybe not.

  3. Naw, if it was just “what people wanted to believe”, they’d all be Origenists, and believe that everyone would eventually be saved no matter how bad they were.

    Mr. Anthony is correct to use quotes so much – much of what people consider “christian theology” is mere folk belief, that proper Theologians will just shake their heads at.

    The Catholics have done a lot of very fine (as in fine-grained) thinking about the issue over the centuries, and made as compelling and logical a system as the source material will provide.

    Naturally, pretty much all the laity have no idea about any of the details.

    (I was a philosophy major, and I read theology for fun… despite being a lifelong atheist.)

    1. much of what people consider “christian theology” is mere folk belief, that proper Theologians will just shake their heads at.

      Or bits and pieces of real theology which they’ve heard and taken out of context.

      A good example is the classic “angels dancing on the head of a pin” argument, commonly cited as evidence of foolish thinking. Many years back, a theologian explained to me what the original argument was and how it had been misinterpreted. The original argument was a thought experiment which dealt with subtle questions like the nature of infinity. No one seriously considered numbers like 7 or 12 — the only answers seriously considered were zero and “as many as God wills.” The modern version is simply misunderstanding of medieval thought.

      Another problem is that many people (especially laymen) try to do theology without looking at the prior art. It looks like that might have happened at DARPA’s 100 Year Starship Conference. There was a paper by a German professor entitled, “Did Jesus Die for the Klingons, Too?”

      This question has actually been around since the time of St. Augustine (without the reference to Star Trek, of course). Unfortunately, all of the press accounts make it sound as if Prof. Weidemannof was the first to ask it. I hope that was just bad reporting and Prof. Weidemannof did review the prior work.

  4. As far as doctrine goes, Hell is not even created untill the end times when Satan is captured after Armageddon.

    By the Bible, it does not yet exist.

    1. Clearly the science is settled, right? This is little more than speculation serving to stroke one’s bias.

        1. I read Jayne’s book over 20 years ago. In the more than 20 years since I have read it, I have yet to encounter a more plausible explanation for the origin and existence of religious belief. It is also the only plausible explanation that I have heard of that explains the origin of what Christianity refers to as “The Fall”.

          Religion is clearly a psychological phenomenon.

          Julian Jaynes ideas are consistent with a systems theory of psychology. This is the notion that the human psyche is a meta-system composed of sub-selves. There are several versions of this theory. One version of this concept is, of course, Marvin Minsky’s society of mind. Another is Eric Bern’s Transactional Analysis. These are the two flavors that I am most familiar with. I know that there are others.

          BTW, my all time favorite SF novel, Greg Bear’s “Queen of Angels”, has this concept of psychology as a major theme in the story.

          2. Religion is clearly a psychological phenomenon

            …and so a rationalization for what people want to believe and more than just that because I believe religion to have a heavy demonic influence. I note that modern rulers all seem to have had spirit guides of some sort (where demons pretend to be historical figures) and has been going on for thousands of years to our latest presidents (from Nancy Reagan forward at least.) [I would be very interested in hearing about any regarding Obama or Michelle as I haven’t yet come across any.] This fits with the thought that major cities all have demons assigned to them (the bible talks of fights between the angel of a certain city delaying another angel.)

            Belief in scripture is not the same as religion which I agree is a psychological state. Belief in scripture is not just belief. It must be based on evidence or it is nothing but wishful thinking.

    2. Leftovers of the bicameral mind today, according to Jaynes, include religion, hypnosis, possession, schizophrenia and the general sense of need for external authority in decision-making.

      This is hilariously self-referential, since the statement is itself relying on an external authority.

      Of course, whether there is some anatomical feature that causes a person to believe in God (or Jayne) is completely unrelated to the question of whether God (or Jayne) exists.

      1. Of course, whether there is some anatomical feature that causes a person to believe in God (or Jayne) is completely unrelated to the question of wether God (or Jayne) exists.

        Yet it is related to the reasons why religion exists. The existence of religion and “god” need not share the same truth value, so let’s not confuse the two.

        1. Yet it is related to the reasons why religion exists.

          No, it might possibly explain how, but “why” is another matter entirely.

  6. While being mindful of the social taboo about speaking ill of the dead, I find it odd that many libertarians and conservatives have suddenly taken to praising a lifelong Marxist as a freedom fighter.

    Hitchens may have criticized the Clintons and was one of a small number of leftists who gave unwavering support to the War on Terror, but that was because he recognized radical Islam as a threat to the Communist world-to-come he believed in.

    This “my enemy’s enemy is my friend, and I must not criticize my friend” mentality is one of the unfortunate byproducts of the War on Terror. It’s similar to what occurred during WW II, when it was taboo to criticize Stalin because he was an ally against Hitler.

    As for theology, like any technical subject, understanding requires long study.

    Most Christian theologians would define hell as “eternal separation from God.” As an atheist, Hitchens would deny that God was ever with him, nor would he expect God to be with him in eternity. In fact, he probably did not believe in eternity (a technical term which does not actually mean what most people think it means).

  7. I love reading comments about religion on a science blog! “It always struck me as rationalization for what people want to believe.” It always struck me that most people have two armpits, one anus and an infinite number of assumptions, prejudices, and opinions…yet armpits and ani have actual utility. You have “always” been struck?! You’re lack of scientific inquisitiveness is shocking. Or are you fool enough to think that you can’t apply scientific reasoning to the study of Theology? You can’t be bothered to verify your assumptions? Thanks Rand, that’s good info.

    1. This is a science blog? I thought it was Rand’s blog?

      Assumptions, prejudices and opinions have no utility? I’ve always thought that prejudice (minus the negative connotation) was just another way of saying that humans use abstract thought?

      Why the insults Gunga? Hardly seems justified. This entire blog is a testament to scientific inquisitiveness which suggests why you made the first false assumption.

Comments are closed.